MORGAN: Is this what discourse has become today?

"You are an (explicative deleted). Just so you know." The subject line was "DUI" and clearly he was responding to my column last Sunday defending Deputy A.J. Ross and the checkpoint.

I responded with a question: "Feel better?" My response was genuine, but what I'm wondering is what did the writer of that email think he accomplished with his reaction? Does he feel better? Does he have some sort of bragging rights? Hey, I called the editor of the paper a name!

I dont' have a twin, though one person is convinced that having a twin is the only way I got this stupid because one person just can't be so stupid.

So stupid as to dare to have a dissenting opinion.

A news release from the Rutherford County Sheriff's Office talks of threats made to the communications center and vulgar comments requiring the suspension of the department's Facebook page. I believe that they received such comments and perhaps even threats for one simple reason. I received them too, though probably not to the extent of the Rutherford County sheriff.

However, it was enough to make me think. You have to have a thick skin to be an editor, but I've never really worried about comments or threats previously. However, circumstance has recently placed me in a situation where my wife and I are raising three girils who are 4 and under. For the first time, I became worried about someone coming to the house (and yes, I've had people come to my home before).

To this day, I am convinced the checkpoint and the stop were legal. I've been covering checkpoints and other law enforcement activities for more than 20 years and have experience myself as a former federal law enforcement officer conducting drug interdiction, immigration and other law enforcement actions while serving in the U.S. Coast Guard, under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Transportation. I also capitalize on what I've read about Supreme Court decisions, what lawyers are saying and more.

None of this makes me an expert, but it gives me a foundation upon which to develop a fairly reasoned opinion. It doesn't mean you have to agree with my opinion as there are people who are on the opposite side of the fence with equally reasoned opinions based on all sorts of factors.

Just as there were a lot of flat-out ugly comments and emails, there were plenty that were polite, respectful and very rational in their disagreement with my opinion.

I have to be honest. The only mistake I personally think the sheriff's department made was their reaction to the incident. They went silent, suspended their Facebook page and let the world pound on them and an officer's reputation for a week. It was a textbook example of how not to handle crisis communication.

And even that supports my point about the level of discourse.

For a long time, I thought the pettiness, the name-calling and the just general disagreement that we see in national politics and occasionally even in state-level politics were limited to those politics. The optimistic side of me was always thinking that regular people can talk through their problems, but that isn't always the case is it?

The First Amendment allows people to call me or you names. It allows people to say what they want, within a few parameters. And we take it seriously, which is why we told Chris Kalbaugh's story and showed his video. It is why we told the Sheriff's Office's version of the story and showed the webcam. We published the opinion of Axl E. David and held a live chat with him, where he took readers' questions. We also took the RSCO to task for its silence while a deputy was taking a beating, and we published my opinion on the matter.

And we left hundreds of comments on our Facebook page and on our website. Even the ugly ones.

Lots of stories, lots of video and lots of opinions. It's how things are supposed to work.

There's a phrase I'm thinking of. Internet tough guy. It is one of the downsides of the Internet and social media. People are too willing to come flying in from who knows where and make some comment about you they'd likely not make in person. It eliminates civility and actual discourse.

And that is a problem.

I don't think we can count on our national leaders to engage in productive discussions about the challenges and problems that face our community. They are too concerned with whoever can scream their opinion the loudest.

So we must. At the grassroots level, we must be able to engage in civil conversations, even when we strongly disagree with each other. Is it possible?

For some it will be. Wednesday we had a great live chat online with Axl E. David. There were lots of questions, and his responses were well-reasoned and well articulated. It was a good, civil conversation on the matter. We've had Sheriff Robert Arnold and other officials on before to address controversial issues as well. Those conversations were also civil, even when there was disagreement.